Clydesdales have their own sub-forum and deservedly so. And those of us who are more or less average in weight have the rest of Bike Forums for tips and advice. But what about the Un-Clydesdales among us?

I'm 5'6", 138 lbs and – not unlike the Clydesdales – often wonder if the advice on frames, tires, wheels, saddles and many other things isn't the best for someone my size. I would guess many of us are neither heavy nor average in weight.

Take frames, for example. If I'm shopping a new frame for randonneuring, should I be looking at the same tubing as the rest of us?

Just wondering, is all.

Elvo

06-25-14 01:41 PM

Having a separate forum for unclydesdales would be discriminatory and exclusive.

shoota

06-25-14 01:43 PM

The difference is that if the recommendations are off for you, the bike won't asplode underneath you and plummet you to your death.

Leinster

06-25-14 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoota
(Post 16881859)

The difference is that if the recommendations are off for you, the bike won't asplode underneath you and plummet you to your death.

Yes, but running too high a psi might see these falabellas ricocheting around like pinballs, sending them over the road barriers and plummeting to their deaths.

shoota

06-25-14 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leinster
(Post 16881874)

Yes, but running too high a psi might see these falabellas ricocheting around like pinballs, sending them over the road barriers and plummeting to their deaths.

Good point I didn't think of that.

JamesRL

06-25-14 01:48 PM

As a former too skinny dude(6' 135lbs) who is now a clyde, I've seen it from both sides.

Skinny people should take advantage and try to keep everything as light as possible. Clydes to need to balance weight and strength.

If or when you become heavier, you need to consider stiffness. But in your current state, just be a weight weenie.

shoota

06-25-14 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesRL
(Post 16881879)

As a former too skinny dude(6' 135lbs) who is now a clyde, I've seen it from both sides.

Skinny people should take advantage and try to keep everything as light as possible. Clydes to need to balance weight and strength.

If or when you become heavier, you need to consider stiffness. But in your current state, just be a weight weenie.

How in the world did you become a clyde from a starting weight of 135lbs??

JamesRL

06-25-14 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoota
(Post 16881882)

How in the world did you become a clyde from a starting weight of 135lbs??

Now that's an impertinent question if I ever heard one.

When I went off to university, I was at that weight, and a competitive runner.

Over the course of the next year, I ran less and cycled more, played some soccer, did karate etc.

The next summer I worked at a place with a good gym, and I put on 25 lbs of muscle in 4 months.

I kept close to that weight for a while, concentrated on cycling, stopped running. I was in better shape cycling I think.

Add thirty years, marriage to someone who didn't cycle because of her knees, a few kids, and whamo, I'm a Clyde. I did balloon up to 260, I'm now 220, and I hope to get below 200.

But be careful about assumptions. My 20 year old son is skinnier than me, but he can't keep up on the bike.

shoota

06-25-14 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesRL
(Post 16881922)

Now that's an impertinent question if I ever heard one.

When I went off to university, I was at that weight, and a competitive runner.

Over the course of the next year, I ran less and cycled more, played some soccer, did karate etc.

The next summer I worked at a place with a good gym, and I put on 25 lbs of muscle in 4 months.

I kept close to that weight for a while, concentrated on cycling, stopped running. I was in better shape cycling I think.

Add thirty years, marriage to someone who didn't cycle because of her knees, a few kids, and whamo, I'm a Clyde. I did balloon up to 260, I'm now 220, and I hope to get below 200.

But be careful about assumptions. My 20 year old son is skinnier than me, but he can't keep up on the bike.

My bad dude, no disrespect meant. For some reason I didn't factor in the course of 30 years. In my mind I had a much much shorter time frame, that's why I was surprised.

Carry on.

DXchulo

06-25-14 02:12 PM

Not sure there are any real issues. Finding clothing can be difficult sometimes. The good news is that when stuff is on clearance, there's a good chance small is one of the only sizes left.

When it comes to equipment, there's less to worry about. I've never had to worry if wheels had a weight limit, for example. You can be much more of a weight weenie if you want.

cderalow

06-25-14 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoota
(Post 16881882)

How in the world did you become a clyde from a starting weight of 135lbs??

I was 6' 140 when i started college (age 18). I was 6' 210 last september (age 30)....

I was 6' 170 when I graduated college (age 22)...

I blame lack of exercise, laziness and kids.

I'm now 6' and 178 (age almost 31)

rms13

06-25-14 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by New Yorker
(Post 16881846)

Clydesdales have their own sub-forum and deservedly so. And those of us who are more or less average in weight have the rest of Bike Forums for tips and advice. But what about the Un-Clydesdales among us?

I'm 5'6", 138 lbs and – not unlike the Clydesdales – often wonder if the advice on frames, tires, wheels, saddles and many other things isn't the best for someone my size. I would guess many of us are neither heavy nor average in weight.

Take frames, for example. If I'm shopping a new frame for randonneuring, should I be looking at the same tubing as the rest of us?

Just wondering, is all.

By pro road biking standards you are clyde. Most guys your weight are like 5'11. Keep working

nuke_diver

06-25-14 02:28 PM

I was 6'1" 150lbs when I started college
I was 6'1" 160lbs when I graduated
I was 6'1" 160lbs when I turned 30,40,50

I'll be 55 soon. I'm 6'1" 161lbs today

I know...I'm lucky I have a metabolism that burns fast and I have remained very active inspite of several knee surgeries which makes running impossible and walking not always super comfortable. I do best at cycling 30-40 miles (never bothers my knees much). I wish I could put 10-20lbs of muscle on in my upper body but despite trying I cannot seem to gain weigh

Black wallnut

06-25-14 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesRL
(Post 16881879)

As a former too skinny dude(6' 135lbs) who is now a clyde, I've seen it from both sides.

Skinny people should take advantage and try to keep everything as light as possible. Clydes to need to balance weight and strength.

If or when you become heavier, you need to consider stiffness. But in your current state, just be a weight weenie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoota
(Post 16881882)

How in the world did you become a clyde from a starting weight of 135lbs??

My story is close... graduated high school at 140 and 5'8", best 1600 meter time of 4:36. Over the years got up to 289 pounds. College years put on 40, the rest gained over time with less activity and more eating than I needed, plus the drinking. I've worked hard to get back to 215 and dropping. Un-clydes.... yeah most of the rest of the forum fits you better than it fits clydes. So you have to work your ass off to keep up with me going downhill while I just spin..... Even in the Clydes there is so much diversity.

New Yorker

06-25-14 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rms13
(Post 16881997)

By pro road biking standards you are clyde. Most guys your weight are like 5'11. Keep working

Good point, lol. Though I don't race or ride competitively. Just want to take advantage of my weight if I can, all else being equal. Advice to be a weight weenie makes sense, though. I mean, why not?

datlas

06-25-14 03:26 PM

I think the target audience of most higher end bikes are un-clydesdales anyway so not really necessary.

wphamilton

06-25-14 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rms13
(Post 16881997)

By pro road biking standards you are clyde. Most guys your weight are like 5'11. Keep working

I got to under 130 before I started biking (5' 10), the lowest since I started HS. From being sedentary, and consequently not eating much, but fast metabolism. After getting into biking, I couldn't help but gain weight which has stabilized at 150 though I wouldn't mind taking some fat off. Non-clydes have different challenges, but they really can be challenges nonetheless.

Deiph

06-25-14 05:54 PM

Have and enjoy whatever sub-forum you want.

Frankly, as a "Clyde", I find it amusing. In real life, I wear a "L" shirt (when it's measured that way). My pants are 34L X 34W. Both of those seem relatively "normal" to me.

But in cycling, I'm a 2XL in both jerseys and bibs -- one size short of breathing fire and attacking Tokyo. At 6'2", 200 lbs, I don't think I'd be successful, but who knows.

If us Clyde's/Godzilla's got you down, start a new forum.

wphamilton

06-25-14 06:19 PM

I don't think it has much to do with you Clydes, if I read the original post right.

I don't care about a featherweight forum, or whatever you'd call it, and wouldn't qualify anyway ... but, I think he has a point. Having a sub-forum based on one body type, it makes sense to wish for another for one's own body type. I doubt that there's enough interest to make it worthwhile ... not my call fortunately.

danmc

06-25-14 06:46 PM

I'm 6'4" and 180 lbs. Where's the Ichabod Crane forum!!!???

schiiism

06-25-14 10:19 PM

The Clyde forum isn't just about physical logistics of heavy riders. It's a community support group. Most Clydes are somewhere between slightly overweight and obese due to poor habits, and are looking to cycling as a sustainable means to become healthy.

Having a fast metabolism or being short isn't a danger to your health. There is no need for a support community for something that's the result of genetics, imho.

Will Goes Boing

06-25-14 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuke_diver
(Post 16882010)

I was 6'1" 150lbs when I started college
I was 6'1" 160lbs when I graduated
I was 6'1" 160lbs when I turned 30,40,50

I'll be 55 soon. I'm 6'1" 161lbs today

I know...I'm lucky I have a metabolism that burns fast and I have remained very active inspite of several knee surgeries which makes running impossible and walking not always super comfortable. I do best at cycling 30-40 miles (never bothers my knees much). I wish I could put 10-20lbs of muscle on in my upper body but despite trying I cannot seem to gain weigh

That sounds pretty similar to me......

I was 5'10 125lbs when I started highschool
I was 5'10 145lbs when I started college
I was 5'10 155lbs when I graduated
I was 5'10 155-160lbs from 25-29

It wasn't when I hit 30 that I was able to break my 160lbs barrier. At one point I was bulking up and was literally eating 7000+ calories a day and just lifted weights with no cardio and was able to get up to 172lbs. Now I'm back to 155lbs. It feels great to be able to go whichever direction I want. I use to hate not being able to gain weight, but now that I'm older I see it as a blessing.

DXchulo

06-26-14 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schiiism
(Post 16883034)

There is no need for a support community for something that's the result of genetics, imho.

I'm sure people with DMD, Type I Diabetes, etc. would disagree with that.

Also, it's typical fat-ass thinking to overestimate the role of genetics as opposed to personal responsibility. I ride over 10,000 miles per year and eat as clean as I can (nobody's perfect). I hear all the time how lucky I am to have "fast metabolism" or some BS like that. Both of my parents are fat. I'd be fat too if I didn't ride much and ate whatever I wanted.

seypat

06-26-14 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXchulo
(Post 16883270)

I'm sure people with DMD, Type I Diabetes, etc. would disagree with that.

Also, it's typical fat-ass thinking to overestimate the role of genetics as opposed to personal responsibility. I ride over 10,000 miles per year and eat as clean as I can (nobody's perfect). I hear all the time how lucky I am to have "fast metabolism" or some BS like that. Both of my parents are fat. I'd be fat too if I didn't ride much and ate whatever I wanted.

A tad bit harsh there DX. Genetics and body type play a bigger part in overall weight than you think. It certainly is the determining factors in which athletic endeavours a person excels at. That's why there are GC contenders, domestiques, sprinters and track cyclists. A person can float between the different types but the body must transform in order to do it.

I'm amazed at some of the weight roller coaster rides that I see on these weight threads. I will admit that the wife and I chuckle at how light some people are in these threads. Congratulations to you people who can get it back down after a huge gain. Heck, getting off 10lbs is a struggle.

I myself:

Started high school at 5'2" 120lbs. Good run and jump athlete. Varsity basketball, baseball, and track for 4 years. Scoliosis, so no football.
Graduated high school at 5'8.25" 168lbs. 4.6 40 and a vertical jump at 40+ inches. (Dunker at 5'8)
Played DII college basketball and graduated college at around 175lbs.
Next 5-7 years basketball 7 days a week, weight lifting, etc. still around 178.
Got married at 188lbs. Had kids. Still playing, lifting, went to 215 a couple of ways. As a chubby and as a weight lifter.
Got back to 200lbs. At 45 I developed plantar fasciitis and had to leave the court. So I took up cycling. Usually average a century a month from April to October. Still 200.
The wife is a runner so I took that up as well last year. Got to 195lbs last year after an unsupported century in June. This year I have run a number of running events including a half marathon and an Olympic Duathlon at the start of this month. I turned 49 this year. Was at 200.
Signed up for the Richmond Marathon and its training team that started in May. I have been running 15-20 miles a week in addition to the other stuff. No more weight lifting. All I do is run, bike and swim. Whatever fat I had is changing into muscle. This morning I weighed 205lbs before breakfast. I have went down a waist size to a 34. In college, I wore 33s. I still have to wear size 38 cycling shorts because of my quads and upper legs. Most people think I weigh around 170lbs.

DX, do not underestimate the role genetics play in overall weight. If a person lives a healthy lifestyle they still might tip the scales at a bigger weight.

By the way, I still suck on hills and distance running. I always will. But I can still run the 40 in under 5 seconds and jump pretty high. That's what life dealt me.

bbattle

06-26-14 07:09 AM

Extrapolate the explosion of sub-forums to its logical(?) conclusion and each one of us will have our very own. Then we can all chat with ourselves, just like Patentcad. ;-)